Harry Kane

[nmc]

Players will make their choices on the basis of pay; the manager; potential for success; style of play; location of club; and many other reasons besides.

The possibility that, 3-4 years down the line, your new club might drive a hard bargain with your next club won’t figure prominently among them.

Thats not entirely true… look at how Dortmund operate… why do they get so many great youngsters… because they see a route to develop and to progress. Sancho and Haaland would never have touched Spurs.

 

[applecentral]

I have no idea who the poster is and what so called tier of itk-ness they are. Nor do i
I either believe or dispute their claim. I do find the whole reaction to it thing very interesting though.

If his 'record' is indeed 50/50, is that not a lot more or at least in line with others. I just find it strange, that posters would rush to discredit one claim, presumably made in good faith. Particularly the same posters that would argue with others over similar claims by other itks, if they happen to be what they want to hear or even vague enough to be interpreted as that. Feels selective. I might be missing a fair bit of background perhaps.

Too much of that goes on in this forum. It’s not healthy

 

[Keeper!]

Thats not entirely true… look at how Dortmund operate… why do they get so many great youngsters… because they see a route to develop and to progress. Sancho and Haaland would never have touched Spurs.

Dortmund also pay huge sums to the young players agents and allow them to make huge demands about the players future.

Spurs, levy simply would not do that.

 

[Centurions]

I have no idea who the poster is and what so called tier of itk-ness they are. Nor do i
I either believe or dispute their claim. I do find the whole reaction to it thing very interesting though.

If his 'record' is indeed 50/50, is that not a lot more or at least in line with others. I just find it strange, that posters would rush to discredit one claim, presumably made in good faith. Particularly the same posters that would argue with others over similar claims by other itks, if they happen to be what they want to hear or even vague enough to be interpreted as that. Feels selective. I might be missing a fair bit of background perhaps.

Couldn't a 50/50 record also be a guess based on information garnered from Twitter? If they're deleting posts as well (presumably when something doesn't work out) then he looks suspect.

 

[Heath Park]

Spurs are well within their rights not to sell him. It's a dick move if there was some kind of good faith agreement but technically a contract's a contract.

The problem for us is that we have no clue what that agreement was, and what's been reneged.

Maybe Levy has changed his mind and said he won't sell him (although there's enough evidence to say that's not the case)
Maybe he's changed his mind and demanded too great a fee (too great from City/Kane's perspective)
Maybe he's changed his mind and told Kane to wait longer than he would have liked.
Maybe he's not gone back on his word, and Kane is the one misbehaving here.
Maybe they've both simultaneously screwed each other.
Maybe there's less in this than we think. Maybe there's more.

We don't know. I understand it's a pretty boring and obvious statement, but we're all so in the dark it's just too difficult to know who is or isn't in the wrong here.

I think there are probably three things at work re the current Harry Kane soap opera. All of which are playing into Levy's hands...

1. Damage the players club reputation with Spurs fans so when he's sold they don't kick off;
2. Try and squeeze as much money out of City as possible, while delaying to reduce City's Plan B striker options; and
3. Sell right up at deadline day so he can bank a lot of the profits, using the excuse of limited time to sign quality new players.

I'm pretty confident this will go through albeit the Messi development might be making both Levy and Kane a bit twitchy!

 

[Heath Park]

Why 100m though. Why not set his marker at 80m. Or 90m. Or be extra modest on tv and go 60m. Why mention it at all?

It was deliberate. It wasn't accidental, meaningless, or random.

Very good point.
I hadn't thought of that.

So perhaps the gentleman's agreement was "if we receive a £100m bid for you next year, we won't stand in your way Harry".

Pure speculation obviously, but quite plausible.

 

[ancoats]

levy will hold on until the community shield then let kane go

 

[its-grim-up-north]

Oy fuckin raggie, get your own fucking monika.

Do one plaggy

 

[JimB]

From a legal standpoint you are correct but you are totally ignoring all the other aspects of job satisfaction.

it’s pretty obvious that Kane didn’t sign a new deal on the promise of being a top 8 side. He would have bought into the vision that Spurs can compete for major honours.

Kane will feel that he has done everything in his power to make that vision a reality and he has been let down by the club.

The fact is that Spurs are not contenders for any major trophy and they only have themselves to blame for their best player wanting to leave the club.

Yes, that’s all fair.

But what you’re describing are the legitimate reasons why Kane wants to leave. That’s not the same thing as legitimate reasons why Spurs should let him leave for a price chosen by him and the club that he wishes to join.

And while there’s no getting away from the fact that Spurs have fallen far from where they were just three years ago, they have had opportunities to win major silverware in that time. And Harry is as responsible for those failures in finals and semi finals as the other players. It’s not quite as one sided in that respect as the media like to portray it.

 

[JPBB]

Fuck me! Do you lot know what a gentleman’s agreement is?

A gentlemen's agreement, or gentleman's agreement, is an informal and legally non-binding agreement between two or more parties. It is typically oral, but it may be written or simply understood as part of an unspoken agreement by convention or through mutually-beneficial etiquette. The essence of a gentlemen's agreement is that it relies upon the honor of the parties for its fulfillment, rather than being in any way enforceable. It is distinct from a legal agreement or contract.

Now stop banging on about evidence of a gentleman’s agreement you thick fuckers!

Whilst acknowledging your years of legal training and experience, please can you clarify this.

City's world class negotiating team are relying on a gentleman's agreement that may or may not exist, no one knows what is in it, there appears to be no witnesses and even if it does exist it is not enforceable.

On the other hand the incompetent Levy has a signed contract, with clear conditions and responsibilities, witnessed and is enforceable.

How does this give City the advantage in the deal?

It doesn't make sense to this thick fucker.